World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
40
Citations
13285
World Ranking
8048
National Ranking
4308

Daniel J. O'Keefe publication distribution in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Psychology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Daniel J. O'Keefe sits on this spectrum.

31–40 publications: 6 scientists 41–50 publications: 52 scientists 51–60 publications: 138 scientists 61–70 publications: 299 scientists 71–80 publications: 461 scientists 81–90 publications: 605 scientists 91–100 publications: 713 scientists 101–110 publications: 736 scientists 111–120 publications: 686 scientists 121–130 publications: 670 scientists 131–140 publications: 644 scientists 141–150 publications: 597 scientists 151–160 publications: 576 scientists 161–170 publications: 477 scientists 171–180 publications: 450 scientists 181–190 publications: 397 scientists 191–200 publications: 343 scientists 201–210 publications: 328 scientists 211–220 publications: 313 scientists 221–230 publications: 283 scientists 231–240 publications: 226 scientists 241–250 publications: 196 scientists 251–260 publications: 201 scientists 261–270 publications: 171 scientists 271–280 publications: 151 scientists 281–290 publications: 139 scientists 291–300 publications: 113 scientists 301–310 publications: 102 scientists 311–320 publications: 100 scientists 321–330 publications: 76 scientists 331–340 publications: 92 scientists 341–350 publications: 85 scientists 351–360 publications: 69 scientists 361–370 publications: 71 scientists 371–380 publications: 63 scientists 381–390 publications: 58 scientists 391–400 publications: 57 scientists 401–410 publications: 43 scientists 411–420 publications: 33 scientists 421–430 publications: 50 scientists 431–440 publications: 41 scientists 441–450 publications: 32 scientists 451–460 publications: 27 scientists 461–470 publications: 28 scientists 471–480 publications: 25 scientists 481–490 publications: 28 scientists 491–500 publications: 20 scientists 501–510 publications: 23 scientists 511–520 publications: 26 scientists 521–530 publications: 17 scientists 531–540 publications: 21 scientists 541–550 publications: 14 scientists 551–560 publications: 16 scientists 561–570 publications: 10 scientists 571–580 publications: 22 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 14 scientists 601–610 publications: 9 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 4 scientists 631–640 publications: 7 scientists 641–650 publications: 5 scientists 651–660 publications: 10 scientists 661–670 publications: 8 scientists 671–680 publications: 8 scientists 681–690 publications: 4 scientists 691–700 publications: 3 scientists 701–704 publications: 4 scientists 705+ publications: 100 scientists
31 publications 705+

This scientist: 103 publications — 22nd percentile

22% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more.

Daniel J. O'Keefe D-index placement in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Psychology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Daniel J. O'Keefe sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 398 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 702 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 671 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 659 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 641 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 671 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 617 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 558 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 495 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 487 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 445 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 390 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 408 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 345 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 325 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 321 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 248 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 290 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 218 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 219 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 215 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 183 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 169 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 132 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 137 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 120 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 112 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 86 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 101 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 83 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 77 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 70 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 78 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 58 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 53 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 57 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 48 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 53 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 46 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 24 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 35 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 27 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 31 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 22 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 16 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 24 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 18 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 11 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 19 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 10 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 16 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 10 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 12 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 8 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 5 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 12 scientists 144+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 40 D-Index — 30th percentile

30% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more.

Overview

Daniel J. O'Keefe is affiliated with Northwestern University in the United States. Their research spans multiple fields, primarily Medicine and Psychology, with contributions also touching on subfields such as Applied Psychology, Literature and Literary Theory, Marketing, Sociology and Political Science, and Surgery.

The scientist's work addresses several main topics, including Behavioral Health and Interventions, Media Influence and Health, Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification, Cultural Differences and Values, Digital Marketing and Social Media, Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes, and Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes.

Research publications by Daniel J. O'Keefe have appeared consistently across a variety of academic venues. The frequent publication venues include:

  • Communication Methods and Measures
  • Frontiers in Psychology
  • Journal of Communication
  • International Journal of Business Communication
  • Journal of patient-centered research and reviews

Notable recent papers by O'Keefe include:

  • "Message Design Choices Don't Make Much Difference to Persuasiveness and Can't Be Counted On-Not Even When Moderating Conditions Are Specified" (2021), Frontiers in Psychology
  • "Persuasive Message Pretesting Using Non-Behavioral Outcomes: Differences in Attitudinal and Intention Effects as Diagnostic of Differences in Behavioral Effects" (2021), Journal of Communication
  • "Comparison Conditions in Research on Persuasive Message Effects: Aligning Evidence and Claims About Persuasiveness" (2023), Communication Methods and Measures

Frequent collaboration is a feature of O'Keefe's scholarship, with co-authors including Hans Hoeken, Jos Hornikx, Anne Janssen, Vanessa Williams, and Mohammad J. Uddin Ansari.

Their work often intersects with research in behavioral health, media studies, and marketing, reflecting a multidisciplinary approach that combines psychological theory with communication methods and medical outcomes.

Best Publications

  • Persuasion: Theory and Research

    Daniel James O'Keefe

  • Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application

    Matthew W. Kreuter;Melanie C. Green;Joseph N. Cappella;Michael D. Slater

  • The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: a meta-analytic review.

    Daniel J. O'Keefe;Jakob D. Jensen

  • Message Properties, Mediating States, and Manipulation Checks: Claims, Evidence, and Data Analysis in Experimental Persuasive Message Effects Research

    Daniel J. O'Keefe

  • The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Detection Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review

    Daniel James O'Keefe;Jakob D. Jensen

  • Two Concepts of Argument.

    Daniel J. O'Keefe

  • The Advantages of Compliance or the Disadvantages of Noncompliance? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relative Persuasive Effectiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages

    Daniel J. O’Keefe;Jakob D. Jensen

  • How to Handle Opposing Arguments in Persuasive Messages: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of One-Sided and Two-Sided Messages

    Daniel J. O’Keefe

  • COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY MEASURES AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY TO COMMUNICATION

    Daniel James O'Keefe;Howard E. Sypher

  • Brief Report: Post Hoc Power, Observed Power, A Priori Power, Retrospective Power, Prospective Power, Achieved Power: Sorting Out Appropriate Uses of Statistical Power Analyses

    Daniel J. O'Keefe

  • Do Loss-Framed Persuasive Messages Engender Greater Message Processing Than Do Gain-Framed Messages? A Meta-Analytic Review

    Daniel J. O'Keefe;Jakob D. Jensen

  • The elaboration likelihood model

    Daniel James O'Keefe

  • Elaboration Likelihood Model

    Daniel J. O'Keefe

  • Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion

    Daniel James O'Keefe

  • The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages for Promoting Vaccination: A Meta-Analytic Review

    Daniel J. O'Keefe;Xiaoli Nan

  • Colloquy: Should Familywise Alpha Be Adjusted? Against Familywise Alpha Adjustment

    Daniel J. O'Keefe

  • The concepts of argument and arguing

    Daniel J. O'Keefe

  • Adapting consumer advertising appeals to cultural values: A meta-analytic review of effects on persuasiveness and ad liking

    Jos Hornikx;Daniel J. O’Keefe

  • Guilt and Social Influence

    Daniel J. O’Keefe

  • Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying conclusion articulation in persuasive messages

    Daniel J. O'Keefe

Frequent Co-Authors

Dale E. Brashers
Dale E. Brashers University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Lawrence Grossberg
Lawrence Grossberg University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Eddie M. Clark
Eddie M. Clark Saint Louis University
Massimo Zancanaro
Massimo Zancanaro University of Trento
Michael D. Slater
Michael D. Slater The Ohio State University
Matthew W. Kreuter
Matthew W. Kreuter Washington University in St. Louis
Joseph N. Cappella
Joseph N. Cappella University of Pennsylvania
Melanie C. Green
Melanie C. Green University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Timothy R. Levine
Timothy R. Levine University of Oklahoma
Ruth Aylett
Ruth Aylett Heriot-Watt University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Studying psychology in the USA offers a variety of online degree options, opening up multiple career pathways within mental health and social services. As interest in remote learning grows, many students appreciate how online programs can prepare them to meet state-specific licensure requirements.

For example, those considering work in social services should be aware of the Wyoming education requirements for social workers, which outline the academic steps needed to practice professionally.

Aspiring counselors must also consider unique regulations in each state. In Alabama, candidates must follow strict guidelines, detailed in the Alabama licensed professional counselor requirements. Similarly, students planning to work in Alaska or Arizona need to review the lpc licensure requirements in Alaska and lpc licensure requirements in Arizona to ensure their educational backgrounds match local standards.

By understanding licensure and education requirements across different states, psychology students can choose degree programs aligned with their career aspirations and the regulatory landscape of their desired location.

Best Scientists Citing Daniel J. O'Keefe

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles